I think this is what restaurants were invented for. and carry out.
the problem with the coleman is that you probably can’t get it hot enough to do anything interesting and for sure heat a cast iron dutch oven all the way through. you’d do better with a campfire. what you can do if you are really determined is to heat water from your garden hose on the coleman stove to wash smaller dishes in a large soup pot. all in all it seems much more trouble than its worth unless you really like that sort of thing.

Mespo,
Have you taken up the cudgel? Wouldn’t ignoring be more fun?
As to IS I think he sees himself as a gadfly from the Right. If he could only understand the definitions better maybe he could be.

You said on:

July 2, 2009 @9:21pm.
“My examole was a classic example of the formal logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.”

The info you gave for your argument was on :

July 2, 2009 @8:31 pm.
“1. All jackasses bray loudly.”
“2. sicilian1 brays loudly.
“3. Ipso facto, sicilian 1 is a loud jackass!”

So, You have stated that that was an example of affirming the consequent.
According to your info it would be impossible to affirm the consequent b/c there was no consequent in the first premise. The whole idea about affirming the consequent is to prove the antecedent. Obviously the only way to prove the antecedent is to have a consequent to affirm.
B/c your argument has incomplete info it would be absolutlely impossible to conclude anything deductively or even inductively.

But, ignorant as you are, I will give you an assist.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt lets put the argument in a form better to prove your point.

1. (If all jackasses bray loudly and if sicilian1 brays loudly) then sicilian1 is a loud jackass
2. sicilian1 brays loudly
C. sicilian1 is a loud jackass!

That would be a modus ponens argument as I explained it to you before.
The antecedent of the 1st premise is in the form of a conjunction() which then leads to the consequent of the conditional statement (You, yourself set it up in if/then form)
In the second premise the antecedent of the 1st premise () is affirmed b/c both premises are true but only b/c your faulty logic has declared them to be true.
That would lead one to conclude that the consequent of the 1st premise MUST be true.

As was said that is what you call CLASSIC modus ponens argumentation.

With your info trying to put it in as you claimed; classis affirming the consequent form it would look more like this:

1. (If all jackassess bray loudly and sicilian1 brays loudly)then sicilian1 is a loud jackass
2. sicilian1 is a loud jackass
C. All jackassess bray loudly and sicilian1 brays loudly.

You task in affirming the consequent is to prove the antecedent true which you fallaciously try to trick your audience into believing your conclusion to be true. (ALL affirming the consequents as a rule are fallacious)(But in argumentation you do not care about truth or fallacy ONLY what you can prove)

So, in your second premise you have affirmed your consequent which by rule means your antecedent has been proven true.

But do you see how in your ignorance, even if one bends over backward to try and interpret what your inferior mind was trying to articulate, if your info is plugged in to affirm the consequent, which you stated your example to be a classic representation of, that it only proves that jackasses and sicilian1 bray loudly. NOT that sicilian1 is a jackass which is what you intended to conclude.

Do you see how you’ve been exposed as an intellectual charlatan. I was able to use your own quotes (July 2, 2009 @8:31/July 2, 2009 @9:31)That is how any skilled attorney would operate. I used your own words to prove my point that you are only an intllectual fraud.

So not only are you ignorant. But you double your ignorance by thinking that you’re schooling another when all you ended up accomplishing was magnifying your own ignorance. Then you triple your ignorance by refusing to admit your ignorance. Then you continue to compound you ignorance by rationalizing, manipulating and trying to re-frame what you said or re-define what were your intended accomplishments.

You need to engage in a deep existential inquiry of your soul to come to terms w/the inyellectual facade you present to the outside world and your failure to truly admit how ignorant you really are. B/c if you continue to bask in your vapidity and try to present yourself as something you are not then you will never have true peace of mind. You will only continue the losing battle of trying to prove the unprovable about yourself or even attain that of which you are not endowed with the abilities to attain.

You are an ignorant and a fraud. But that does not mean that is a static state. I would say you should search your soul to correct your flaws and come to a more complete state of being.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/lifestyles/food_cooking/article/F-DUTC24_20090623-183805/275816/

http://papadutch.home.comcast.net/~papadutch/

mespo – this salad can stand on its own, but also good with grilled chicken.

If you can find tuna steaks how about a Salad Nicoise? If you grill salmon, you can make cakes from a couple of 8 oz leftovers.
You can also steam mussels with a splash of wine or clams in beer in a plastic bag in the microwave. ‘Sautee’ some garlic, bell pepper, and onion and herbs (basil, oregano, thyme) and S&P in olive oil, first to flavor. A baguette and a salad-that’s dinner.

An exotic Moroccan couscous salad with chickpeas, raisins and colorful vegetables coated in a delicately spiced olive oil and lemon dressing. Serves four as a side dish or two as a main meal.

1 cup quick-cooking couscous
¼ cup raisins
1¼ cups boiling chicken or vegetable stock
3 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
2 tablespoons lemon juice
1 clove garlic—minced
1 teaspoon ground cumin
1 teaspoon ground coriander
½ teaspoon ground ginger
1 teaspoon salt
1 carrot—peeled and grated
½ red pepper—diced
¼ red onion—finely diced
1 cup canned chickpeas—rinsed and drained
2 tablespoons finely chopped flat-leaf parsley

MIX the couscous with the raisins in a bowl and pour over the boiling stock. COVER with a dish towel, plate or plastic wrap to seal in the steam and let sit for 5 minutes. PLACE the oil, lemon juice, garlic, spices, and salt in a jar with a screw-top lid and shake to mix. FLUFF the couscous with a fork to separate the grains and stir through the carrot, red pepper, onion, chickpeas and parsley. POUR over the dressing and toss together until well combined.

—
Mixed Vegetable, Chickpea, Prune & Pine Nut Couscous. Fluffy couscous combined with a selection of colorful vegetables, chickpeas, toasted pine nuts, chopped prunes and Moroccan seasonings.

Insalata di Riso (Italian Rice Salad). Packed with tasty and healthful ingredients including tuna, tomatoes, toasted pine nuts, mushrooms, peas, cubed mozzarella cheese, artichoke hearts and peppers.

Moroccan Chicken & Olive Tagine with Almond Couscous. Tasty chicken and olive tagine, served over a bed of almond-studded couscous.

“At least Scilian1 is trying to make his own points and use his own mind.”

**********

As with Sarah Palin, that’s the scary part.

No in the world of practical logic I am the victor.

You are the intellectual ignorant who can’t admit that you presented:

A) half a premise.
B) A second premise that drew a on a non-existent consequent.
C)A conclusion that was impossible to draw from the information in the premises.

Did you tell that to your suppossed professor when you saw him?

You are still such an arrogant that you continue to engage me after I exposed your ignorance, unable to accept that fact which only causes you to further expose yourself for the consumate ignorant that you are.

You know, lawyers are suppossed to be able to put their arguments through a truth table before they present them so they know where are the possible holes in their arguments which their opponents may attack.

You must’ve missed that class. Or maybe you’re just so smug in your psuedo intellect which you’ve probably worked hard at fabricating and which those in your progressive crowd are so used to congratulating that you can no longer see how ignorant you’ve become.

I exposed you yet you persist.

is a dipthong something a girl with 2 butts would wear?

personally I was just joking around and used nie as an abreviation for the old english “níehst” roughly meaning near.

No more so the intellectual than you looking for quotes on “Bartlets Famous Quotations” to make points that you are unable to make for yourself. I think one refers to that as “second handedness”. At least Scilian1 is trying to make his own points and use his own mind.

I eat lunch with him once a month, diphthong.

***********

nie? Which day is “nie?” Let me help, “for another day is [Tuesday] and promises rebirth and a new chance.”

LOL, you guys really are intellectuals.

And sicilian1 I do admit you are the intellectual victor in the world of logic you possess– a lonely world, but at least it’s yours. LOL

Cast iron doesn’t like a lot of soap or scrubbing.

Empty, wipe, rinse, and fire dry. Light oiling with a soft cloth
once in a while…

I must admit, I think Sicilian1 has a point about that entire Prof. story. That is what it sounded like to me as well.

actually what is logic good for? especially the new logic. One can “prove” a horse is a table but so what?

I dont need to prove gravity, I just need to drop a ball. I dont need to prove that an object remains at rest until acted upon by another, I need only kick a ball.

What good is “formal logic” if you prove a fallacy? Maybe as an exercise to stimulate the brain but little else unless used honestly.

I think you lawyers rely on “formal logic” to prove invalid points to make your case.

I think categories are more important and a prerequisite for logic. You have to be able to differentiate between horse and table.

Oh yes, try to denigrate me after I proved your inferiority. That is the progressive way.

Your argument was in fact inferior and juvenile w/only 2 premises, even if you are given the benifit of the doubt to assume what you were trying to convey.

I already explained to you the difference b/t modus ponens, modus tollens, denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent. I explained to you a negation, disjunction and a conjunction in addition to a conditional (if/then) statement.

I even showed you examples of how they would apply to your incomplete argument. I did you the favor of assuming what your ignorant mind was incapable of expressing.

The fabricated story w/your professor will not cover for your ignorance.

B/c even if they lie of that “run-in” is to be believed it shows that you were to ignorant to even know what you were trying to propose b/c you had to ask someone after your ignorance was exposed.

It also shows you were dishonest in the suppossed question you asked your suppossed professor b/c I only critically dissected what you presented. The question couldn’t have been anything beyond a simple logic 101 question b/c that was all the info you provided.

Just admit your intellectual inferiority was exposed. Then your ego so wounded you had to go run to some progressive professor to sooth yourself, if that is even to be believed

I am no more a troll than you or mespo or AY.

I am a man I am not a troll. I am mortal flesh, that feels pain and rejoices in life. I am not a troll, a thousands times no, to bear such ignominy and shame is beyond the limits of human endurance.

I sought affirmation but received ridicule, cruel fates of life lead me to the river. Shall I cross or remain sentient, for another day is nie and promises rebirth and a new chance.

A bullet or the sun? My eternal question.

Don’t remonstrate our little foolish friends. I am enjoying their bluster. This obsession with affirming the consequent is hysterical. Apparently a subtle form of the formal fallacy really has him going. Unless it’s written as an if/then statement he’s really crisscrossed–typical novice. That, of course, is why I wrote it that way. I ran into my old undergrad prof at lunch the other day and this is the type of argument he gets from freshman in their first year of logic! I see sicilian1 has at least gotten that far. Brava!

I’ve got a gas burner on my outdoor grill but I don’t have anywhere to wash pots or pans. The bar sink is under repair too. I am trying to work out of the garage sink. What do you think about a heavy cast iron dutch oven? I can use that on an old Coleman stove I have.

The talk of math.

Oh, such great intellects, my math problem awaits your solving.

5 July 2009 @3:45

Despite what the math may suggest, two half-wits don’t make a whole wit. IS and Sil solved that AND showed their work. It’s the first thing I think they’ve earned an A on.

********************************

Do they not at least make a Twit or don’t you give a Twit Ass.

sniffle

Our little trolls are growing up.

Go out and buy a cast iron pizza pan or griddle or something. I have a Lodge chicken fryer with a lid that I got from Amazon, cheap, and seasoned myself, but you can order them seasoned. They are heavy, but the best all around pan ever. Check out Target or Wal-mart, even. They sell woks, hibachis and sportsmen’s grills, too! Get creative.

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=chicken+fryer+cast+iron&ta
g=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=2743288765&ref=pd_sl_63pf1k848n_b

I’ll try to think of good easy stuff to make from the fridge, you lucky dog.

So what about the fact that you the intellectually superior progressive (sic) tried to affirm the consequent and failed so miserably.

Your inability to put a consequent in the first premise was an astounding exposition of your absolute intellectual inferiority.

Oh, ignorant progressive you can not become wise untill you realize your ignorance. And only by losing your progressive arrogance can you begin to do so.

“You’re insults do not phase me. As an ethnicity who has had war declared upon them by corrupt governments throughout the world I wear my badge of incarceration with honor.”

***********

Methinks, the lady doth protest too much!

Couldn’t have said it better. This ignorant only exposes himself more with every post.

Mespo tried to affirm the consequent when he didn’t even put a consequent in the premise.

And Mespo is such an arrogant progressive he fails to realize his own ignorance.

“mespo727272:”

“you must be one very wise man.”

************

Why, thank you IS. You really have learned something new!

“A man only becomes wise when he begins to calculate the approximate depth of his ignorance.”

——————————————–

you must be one very wise man.

You’re insults do not phase me. As an ethnicity who has had war declared upon them by corrupt governments throughout the world I wear my badge of incarceration with honor.

But yes, I have exposed you as an intellectual fraud. Though you ignore the fact that I exposed your inablity to affirm the consequent when you thought it was you who were showing off your intellectual chops, I shall continuously refer to that example so your intellectual facade continues to be exposed.

It amuses me so that you were trying to show how smart you were, trying to talk down to me when in fact you exposed your own ignorance.

“Continue to ignore youe deficiencies the better to convince yourself and those sychophants of your ilk that you are what you think you are and you are who they congratulate you to be.”

********

I don’t ignore them my felonious friend, given their multitude, I bask in them!

“A man only becomes wise when he begins to calculate the approximate depth of his ignorance.”

—Gian Carlo Menotti

Knew it wouldn’t take long before I could bait you into a personal attack. But that is the progressive track. Insult, belittle and get vicious b/c you are all nothing but a psuedo intellectual bunch. It’s only a matter of time before your ignorance rears it’s ugly head.

Just can’t come to terms w/the way you’re friends sold you out. But of course, it means more to be in the progressive crowd then to protect your own dignity.

Remember, when you criticize and insult me, you are doing so to yourself. After all, AY compared your style to mine w/no objections from those in your crowd.

Don’t believe me?

2 July 2009 @4:06

But yes, oh progressive, wallow in your ignorance and hypocricy.
Your continued biting of my bait only reinforces and amuses me all the more.

patty c,

Don’t want to admit that who you perceived (percieved) [sic] to be your friends would so readily stab you in the back and use you as fodder for their own purposes.

****************************************

Look buddy, take your crap elsewhere. We may fight amongst ourselves. And some may have different feelings about other, but please take your crap elsewhere. I know you need the attention and slarti has even tired of you so direct all of you amine at me, can you?

I suggest that if you do not, you will maybe not like all of the other consequences embellished on this blawg.

BZZZZZZZTTTT

ZAP!

plink.

bzzzzzzzzzzt

BZZZZTTTTTTTT

I didn’t know they made insect zombies.

Yes, oh psuedo intellect.

Continue to ignore youe deficiencies the better to convince yourself and those sychophants of your ilk that you are what you think you are and you are who they congratulate you to be.

Don’t want to admit that who you percieved to be your friends would so readily stab you in the back and use you as fodder for their own purposes.

Remember as you yuck it up that they will cut you loose when the opportunity presents itself.

You show your progressive tendencies. Of course you’re not mad b/c you will probably do the same when the opportunity presents itself to you.

I hear those trombones coming up in the background too. Anyway, pretty quiet around here. Suffering through a kitchen remodel at our home–I call it my own little stimulus package–and getting ready for the appliance install. I am shedding tears because my Wolf range is out of commission for a while and I’m microwave/takeout pizza bound.

Isn’t that a brass band, I hear, too?

p.s. Weekend was dark and stormy but loose as a goose. How about you?

Did you hear a buzzing around here? I think it’s the rare self-congratulatory jackass fly (stupidus et extremis). Annoying, pestering, but ultimately easy to swat and of little consequence. How’s your holiday weekend?

The progressive who tries to affirm the consequent with an obvious example that did not in fact affirm the consequent b/c he did not include a consequent to affirm in the first premise.

More psuedo-intellectual tricks. Then they congratulate themselves and get vicious in there attacks.

“Almost forgot – generally poor spelling, grammar, and sentence construction are other dead giveaways. He never studied proper English much less Latin…

‘Veni, vidi, vici’”

************************

Hey Patty for me it’s “”Veni, Vidi, Dormivi.”

Patty C,

I suggest you go and proof read the posts. Your style was compared by your progressive friends to mine.

So I would say you are yucking it up with the enemy.

Don’t believe that your friends took a shot at me at your expense?

2 July 2009 @4:06

Read it and weep. AY took a gratuitous shot at you then no one raised a word in your defense.

But that’s progressive m.o. they’ll cut anyone loose when it’s to their benefit.

‘Veni, vidi, vici’

Yes continue to congratulate one another for nothing. All you have done is proven my point.

You take my bait.
Reveal your biases, predjudices, knee-jerk reactions, accuse, presume, assume.
Then jump on soapboxes to assault w/assigned positions of which your opponent has never articulted.
Get defensive and frenzied when your same rhetorical tricks are used against you to reveal what you are.
Then deny what you are while you futiley try to reverse the tactics I have already reversed on you.
Remain ignorant to what has been done and I continue to do to you.
As, in all your arrogance you stubbornly insist that you are playing me.
Understand you can not play the one who initiates the game. Everything is done on my terms. Your continued stubborness to realize how gullible and ignorant you are is your downfall.
All your premises are built upon fallacies. Your tactics are hypocritical. You are guilty of what you accuse others of just by the very fact that I so easily engage you.
But your vapid self-absorbtion will never let you see the light.

So go ahead continue to play to those in the peanut gallery.
Continue to congratulate one another for unrealized victories.
But that is another m.o. of the progressive to gang-up then dismiss and declare victory as you as you hiest one another on your progressive pedastal.

After the way I have exposed your biases and hypocricies. After you have been such easy fodder for my tricks I would hope that you would all engage in some self examination to realize your faults and deficiencies in thought.

This is what Bartlebee/Cromagnum Man/Waynebro’s MO was/is.

Start fights and then continiue to exasperate everyone until finally declaring himself the winner. He wants to start a private debate site and invite turlees as judges.

“He is actually Antonin Scalia on speed.”

Now that’s good detective work! I thought his style was familiar . . .

Your progressive tricks are ineffective as I’ve demonstrated over and over.

When all that is left belittle and label.

Keep proving my point